The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Americans giving twice as much to charity might not make much of a difference

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/17/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 467 times Debate No: 84034
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




Doubling charity giving might not achieve that much good. { Such as poverty reduction and improving educational outcomes}

I am not sure I 100% agree with that, so I thought I would test it out.
Current trends of charity giving sees places of worship get more money than the charity arms of those places of workshop {I would argue that is not good}. Education donations do not seem to be making significant changes to educational outcomes.

So, would doubling really help. If the money continued to be allocated the same way.

So I am going to argue no {at this point in time}


I will be debating this topic, and will be for doubling charity, and the influence of doing so.

So, let me start off by saying CHARITY IS A GOOD THING. Also, let me add THE MORE THE BETTER.

Sure, it might not seem like much, but it's just baby steps if you want to call it that. Little by little, slowly making a difference (yes, it's unnoticeable because this is a pretty big world than what some take it granted for, and there is many people in this world).

It would seem more so logical that doubling charity for ANYTHING is beneficial. Now, for educational donations, it does make a big difference. I mean think about it, all that extra money is going for new textbooks, new football fields (for those wanting to get ahead by that). Extra money even going to get better educators to come in, yeah this all helps. It's crazy to think doubling charity wouldn't help.

All because the first baby step is not so noticeable. One reason the change isn't seen by the human eye is not because of the educators in those cases, it's because of students and their laziness, and all the distractions with these high tech phones, and everything else they got going on which lowers their academic scores. This is the main reason in fact you don't see a change.

So technically doubling is good by default, but basically it has it's downsides and not so good due to laziness and unwilling to learn. So the issue isn't doubling charity donations at all in educational donations, it's getting students to learn.

Now as for doubling charities in other donation places, well, again the more the better.
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks for accepting.

I agree that donating to charity is good. Although where it is going and likely to keep going, I have an issue with that.

I would argue that it is not so much about baby steps {at least not in all cases}. I would argue that the money is not likely to change much for society by as much as we might think, even if the money was increased. The biggest chunk of money goes to places of worship for example. Would a doubling or even a tripling of that money really make that much of a difference to America? As the purpose of the donation may be more about funding the overhead of places of worship and the like. {At least some or most of the time} Not ending poverty.

As you pointed out, there are many factors impacting educational outcomes. So, how would a doubling or even quadrupling change that? The government spends much more on education than is donated to education and even they have not been able to end the achievement gap between white and minority students, etc. A fair amount of educational donations go to universities and a relatively small number of rich universities get quite a bit. Would more money to them really make much of difference to education in general. {Depending on what they did with it of course}.

Human Services gets the third most money which includes poverty relief. Given that getting a job can help, how are poverty relief charities going to address that? Considering that many of them don't focus on job creation and might not even with more because their focus may lie elsewhere. Improving the pay and conditions of poor workers, how much power would a charity have to do that, even with more money? Unions, with more money and politicians have struggled to get that done.


Where the money is going, and if it's getting to the correct source is a little irrelevant to this debate, I will not be arguing against this but if that's the issue for you, then I'm not sure what to say cause I'm talking strictly if the money reaches the intended organization. None the less, I will continue arguing my points about educational donations, as well as some workplace donations.

As for educational outcomes, you asked how specifically would doubling, or even more would change them? Well, let me tell you firstly that the EDUCATION IS THERE. The money has been well spent on getting student's the education that they need provided they are willing to learn. If you back track within the last 50 years or so, you will see more and more are going to college since then. This is a fact. You can't just expect every student to learn, but the main thing is, all the tools they need are there, and getting more and more textbooks, having more money to give out scholarships is better, I mean, there is no way you can't say it's not better. I came from a very small school in a small town, where they could only afford to give one child a scholarship based on football. You can safely bet if they had more money, they would have given out more, again another fact. With that more money, the weight room would have been upgraded, the performance would have a increase and again this yet another fact that should be clear to see. Actually this year, that football team sadly won it's first district title, the school had spent more money on the weight room actually, and that helped those players greatly. (This is not made up, this is an actual story from where I live). So I'm able to see the change in what a little more money could achieve.

Lets go to workplace donations for a moment, I might continue back with educational donations, but first, lets talk about all those youtuber's, or twitch streamers, and their kickstart or go funding pages. It's proven, the more money they got, the better it was used like camera's, and sound. Also, it provided most a source of income so they could be there to make more video's, and not have to be restricted due to some Mcdonald's job they were working before. The quality had gotten better for most, able to buy the props, the sets to help with green screening. Most now probably use Adobe After Effects or better, no having to be restricted to windows movie maker. Some went on for real TV shows (like the annoying orange I believe, but there are quite a few). Only a few cases such donations didn't help the youtubers like (theamazingatheist) who spent his money wrongly and ripped off fans, but just because ONE BAD APPLE is odd from the others, doesn't intrinsically make all the other apples bad, they're still delicious.

I don't even have to comment on actual workplaces cause it's proven that more donations = better. Look at the world trade center now that's been rebuilt.... Way stronger than before, built more safely.
Debate Round No. 2


Thanks for the comeback.

I would respectfully disagree that where the money goes is irrelevant to the debate. The original debate proposition was not against charity itself but if the money continues to be allocated to the same places will more make that much of a difference. Something I did not have an answer to and so thanks for taking up the challenge and making the time to debate.

Let's look at education. The US government spends over 500 billion a year on pre-university education. That is significantly more than the 40 or so billion a year in donations to education. What has the government done with that 500 billion. Americans are still ranked closer to the bottom of the list than the top when it comes to international league tables in some categories.

No city in America {according to the head of the New York school system some years ago} has managed to close the achievement gap between white and minority students. Yes more students are going to university but many of them are from middle-income and high income families. Most of them would be going to university even without charity support. Most of those going to university are not students from low-income families Given that most of the money donated to education is not going to scholarships for the poor or the poorest schools or the small town schools like the one you talked about, I would argue that an increase in donations is not likely to change much.

That is not to say donations don't do any good but is it a good return on investment. Given the return on 500 billion plus, I would argue that it is not a good return on investment. I would imagine that 40 billion or so might be getting an even lower return. {Unless of course they are spending it more effectively}. No doubt, those making films would benefit from more funds. In fact, a bit of good might come from all that. Film projects, job creation and the like. That said, most donations are not currently going there and if charity donations doubled {and continued to go where they currently go} most would not be going to those making films.

Thanks for debating.


While this has been a good little debate, and your last post seemed to have been the strongest you've made thus far in the debate to end what you had to say... I'm going to rebuttal some things you said, and retract a little on some things I said, and clarity before posting some information and ending.

Yes, we are talking about the money reaching the same places. It's not surprising to anyone, sometimes that check you send out gets in the wrong hands, but for the most part, my posts have been strictly concerning the donations when reaching their intended places. You have just mentioned that again. I meant to say the mix ups that don't reach their intended places is irrelevant for this debate rather as you have not brought that up at all.

I spoke about how more charity and more funds helped my town, like the highschool football team winning their first district title, and could speak more about the effect on more funds being sent just from that personal experience in this small town, but to continue on and move away from this topic and get right back on track here, it's important to note that the underlying problem here isn't necessarily the money being sent. It's the fact that children are unwilling to learn, and right down anything just to be done with it. (I don't think at one point in any of you posts, you acknowledged this, but merely said many factors impacting educational outcomes). Here's the thing, education is the grey area. You agreed that more funds would help most youtuber's with ideas, provide them with better equipment and maybe launch their success more (with the exception of some people like i already said which was theamazingatheist and a few others) but more importantly, you realized that giving more money more than enough helps the youtubers. Take James Rolfe for example, he's the guy who plays the Angry Video Game Nerd. He had a kick starter project to donate to in the cause of making an AVGN movie, and people donated, and he was able to make a full feature film (the film wasn't that good, but hey, some loved it, and it's an opinion, and this just some examples). Also, there have been countless numbers of streamers able to now do this as a full time job like they couldn't do before.

So, education isn't the only charitable organization. Donating to the red cross and doubling that? Awesome. You can't deny that. Charity doesn't have to be strictly spending money, again like the red cross, it's still an charity organization. Just cause educational is a grey area in donations, doesn't mean that it's fail, but more so it remains to be a grey area. As I have already said more than once, now beating that dead horse over the head, I have said that the education is there for those who are serious, it's the problem of getting kids to learn. Also, it's worth noting, middle class families now struggle to send kids to college, and most go into debt, so middle class at this age is anything but a good entry.

That is all.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.